I don't see how the marketing of photojournalism as art or otherwise has anything to do with the merit of the photographer, HCB or anyone else. Any reasonably discerning viewer would know to judge the piece in question based on what it is, not what it is claimed to be. Do you really believe what the ads tell you? How does it matter if the consuming majority or the media or the pretentious little photographer himself calls it the next best thing after the Mona Lisa? You can resent it but should it affect your judgement of the artwork?
I know the evaluation of art is subjective, but I thought that means it depends on the what the viewer 'feels' about it, not what he or she thinks of the artist. Badri On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 23:08:55 +0200, P�l Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sure, but that doesn't prevent such images being prized and judged on artistic merrits. At photographs are being "marketed" or published as "art" in spite of being accidental snapshots, not a product of an unique or sensitive vision, the whole thing becomes highly speculative, as often is the case with excessive violence in the media. > > > P�l
